antelope

Hasn't that been the history of capital ships for a long time. They are expensive and beautiful and naval people base their lives around them. Their love for their ships destroys logic and reason.

I see all the convoluted logic to justify no battleships or massive carrier forces. Take those people and put them in 1914 or 1935 and they would have not seen the future either.

Carriers are a great system to give air cover in the initial stages of a campaign until local airbases are secured so the far more efficient Air Force takes over. The first sign of a credible defense they back the carrier away. The true deep strike weapons are missiles launched off non-carrier surface ships, submarines, and Air Force aircraft. Once the place is "safe" for the carrier they join the battle.

Look at the China/Taiwan thread and who is going to take out the Chinese navy? Submarines.

I understand the Navy logic that for every carrier you think you need in war you need 3 real carriers. Can you see that logic given to Army Divisions? Of course not. The Navy needs about 4 carriers to fight any potential country in the world except Russia. Give them a few more to make the Admirals happy that are laid up in dry dock at any given time.

If you need more than 4 aircraft carriers to fight a war they will be calling the war World War III. I'll take a submarine with nuclear tipped missiles anyday in that conflict.

Saying that the battleship is an exellent missile platform and a great way to provide local fire support means that one more carrier may not be needed. The Navy will never say that.